Assualt weapons

[_Gadianton]

If anyone has been reading the news media lately, it's become clear that there are some serious discussions as to whether assault weapons should be legal or not.

Do any of you feel that the sale of assault weapons should be allowed or banned? Why should they be allowed or why should they be banned?

Personally, I can't see any reason for the average citizen to own an assault weapon.

Thoughts?

If I thought it would make a real difference I'd have no problem stripping away the ARs from my friends, neighbors, and online acquaintances like Rockslider. I would feel cold and indifferent toward any joy taken away from anyone. I'm just not sure it will make a real difference. If you have a choice, maybe the AR is the best weapon to go on a spree with, but eliminate that as an option and there's plenty else that will do the job. My gut feeling is to make a real difference you'd need a major crackdown on all semi-autos and/or high-capacity magazines. Heck, all a real deer hunter needs is a twelve gauge with a slug round. There's restrictions already for hunters on the number of rounds they can have in a magazine for the sake of preserving game, and so hunting/target shooting can be preserved while eliminating pretty much anything you could take out a crowd with. I see the focus on assault weapons and banning this or that kind of ammo as being ineffective and I'd put money on it not working. Would I vote for eliminating everything but pump/bold actions with low-capacity clips? Not sure. It would need to be quite the crackdown effort.

We're focusing on these unusual events where over a dozen people are killed. According to Kevin G. If I recall correctly, taking out two or three is also considered a mass shooting, and to protect against that you'd need to eliminate/crack down on pump/bolt action guns too. You'd have to effectively come seriously close to ending hunting.

A main counterargument in terms of effectiveness of gun bans is that criminals can get guns illegally, or 3d print them, or whatever. But what we're seeing in the highly publicized events in US is one-off loners going postal. These folks don't know anybody and no savvy criminal would deal with them, and they probably wouldn't have the follow-through to do what it takes to procure an arsenal and avoid sting operations while they're at it. So then it's down to mass killings by criminal organizations. They'll get their guns one way or another, gun laws aren't going to stop that, but they don't seem to be the focus.

Are there other ways to end mass shootings? I don't think guns should be the only focus. Banning CNN might work just as well.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Gad!

A very interesting and thought provoking post - in my opinion.

In addition to you, I am hoping that some of the other bright MDB members will be contributing their thoughts on this. Like I mentioned already to my friend, Q, I think this thread could turn into an extremely interesting discussion/read.

I hope it does!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Kevin Graham]

Given the US constitutional amendment, any weapon of any sort should be permissible for a citizen to possess.

The idea that one cannot defend oneself is abhorrent to the fundamental structure of our community.

So, yes, any assault weapon should be allowed for all law abiding citizen of the United states

Just another lame straw man.

Please demonstrate where anyone ever said you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself.

And then go ahead and demonstrate when and where people have ever used AR-15s to defend themselves. These are not self defense weapons. That's why they call them assault weapons. That's what they're designed for. Almost all the guns used for self defense are hand guns. No one is saying we should ban hand guns. Got it?

Probably not. So go ahead with your next ignorant straw man.

[_Kevin Graham]

Bingo! it's an old warn out saying but true none the less ... Gun's don't kill people, People Kill people.

It is also a stupid saying, that avoids the serious issues we have with guns killing people, whether intentionally or accidentally, particularly by children.

My guns are of no threat to innocent individuals.

Guns don't discriminate between innocent and guilty. Studies have shown that people who own guns in their homes are more likely to be involved in gun related violence than those who do not own guns. In other words, guns do not make you safer. By making you less safe, they effectively take away your freedom, and in some cases, your freedom to live. Your entire argument is based on emotion; your "feelings" of security, which are really irrelevant to the facts. Your feelings don't get to Trump the actual safety of others.

IN Fact: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements. A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data in all 50 states found that for every one percent increase in a state's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.

[_RockSlider]

waiting for you to identify from my list the guns that need banned

[_Tator]

Great post Gad. I agree with Jersey Girl and Rock on their posts. I have been a shooter all my life and a hunter for most of it but I have stopped that part of it. I do some target shooting and have lots of friends that do and a few that shoot in competitions. I am the of the mindset that banning guns do nothing to deter someone who wants to commit mass murder. I am with Rock on the fact that the assault rifle is not always the best murdering machine out there in all circumstances. The shotgun can be the most deadly in a christmas party situation like the one that just took place. The assault rifle is the one in the movies and I guess the gun of choice but if they were all banned only the criminals and terrorists would have them and if they all disappeared off the face of the earth the criminals and terrorists would just go to another rifle or shotgun or bomb etc. etc.

PS Rock, very similar in thoughts and deeds but I do kill spiders in the bathtub and pretty much any place else I find them.

[_Jersey Girl]

Bingo! it's an old warn out saying but true none the less ... Gun's don't kill people, People Kill people.

It is also a stupid saying, that avoids the serious issues we have with guns killing people, whether intentionally or accidentally, particularly by children.

My guns are of no threat to innocent individuals.

Guns don't discriminate between innocent and guilty. Studies have shown that people who own guns in their homes are more likely to be involved in gun related violence than those who do not own guns. In other words, guns do not make you safer. By making you less safe, they effectively take away your freedom, and in some cases, your freedom to live. Your entire argument is based on emotion; your "feelings" of security, which are really irrelevant to the facts. Your feelings don't get to Trump the actual safety of others.

IN Fact: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements. A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data in all 50 states found that for every one percent increase in a state's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.

Kevin,

Do you even hear what's coming out of your keyboard?

[_Kevin Graham]

Stop nit-picking Jersey Girl, you get the point.

[_maklelan]

I don't hunt, its just not in me to kill things (I help spiders escape from the bath tube). I love shooting and have done a lot of it in my time.

I'm not certain, but I assume France has very strict gun laws. Did that prevent disaster?

1) It prevents many disasters. They have 3 gun-related deaths per 100,000 compared to the US' 10 per 100,000. nobody is so laughably naïve as to think laws are only effective or valuable if they never fail. France is much safer than the US in large part because of their restrictive laws.

2) The automatic weapons used in the Charlie Hebdo attacks and in the more recent ones were illegally trafficked, which is one of the dynamics against which gun control is aimed. Easy access to guns in neighboring countries facilitates trafficking. In the US, it's easy access in neighboring states that allows criminals to bring illegal guns into states with strict gun control, as is illustrated here. You can see which laws are effective at mitigating gun trafficking here.

3) Al Qaeda and ISIS have actually posted public calls for Muslims to go to American gun shows to buy their guns because it's so damn easy. See here for an example.

Do they feel any safer today with those laws?

Yes, and they are demonstrably safer than we are.

On a larger scale Afghanistan resisted Russian attack Helicopters and their army for years, and how many of your children have been, are, or soon will be, again going like my son? Guess what, they are poor bastards who with no money and guerrilla warfare tactics have keep the largest forces in the world at a standstill.

It would be hard to come up with a less relevant example.

So make a big scare, get people to jump on the band wagon and ban the likes of armor piercing bullets. And those scary semi-automatic rifles that look like they belong in a war. Hell as I factually pointed out in the other thread, you best ban your kids plinker 10-22 rifle, cause it will kill a cop hit in the chest with personal body armor on. i.e. you have done nothing but take away my right to load test/fun rounds and see how much steel I could punch.

sidenote: I know nothing about physics, but a had a several of those triangular hooked weights you counter weight a small tracker with. They were each about 3/8" thick. I also had the one chunk of 2" plate, of which a graphite lubricated titanium military AP 30 cal, seems 179 grain pushed with a +p 300win mag load made it about 3/4" of the way through, in a very unusual spiral stair case type fashion (it ended up about 2" higher then the entry point).

But what was interesting was trying to stack the 3/8" plates to see exactly how many, it would only make it through 3 plates with a nice bump in the 4th. I assume multiple surface tensions or some such was the cause (the metal actually seemed softer that the thick plate).

Back on track: So I showed two guns which are actually military based weapons and yet don't have that scary ar/ak look and feel and so most will give them a pass. Well let me tell you about the one that scares you, that ar (or cheap ass ak47's). The ak's can't hit the broad side of a barn,

There's not a lot of aiming going on when shooting into large crowds. That's kinda the purpose.

and if you don't have the spendy high quality spray cans of cleaner/lube always on hand, doing constant maintenance, that damn ar is going to jam on you every time. Now someone recently mentioned a mini-14. I don't own own of these, but for non comp shooting, I'd take that mini in a heartbeat over any ar/ak type of rifle.

image too big
Mini-14

Notice it has basically the same breach/action as the M1Garand and the M1a that I have shown and even the kids ruger 10-22 ... you know, not the scary "assault rifle" stocks, barrel guards, flash suppressors etc that look mean but mean nothing to a domestic shooter.

image too big
ruger 10-22

You can take any of these guns with these actions and throw them in the mud, throw the clips in the mud, brush them off, plug em in and shoot away. Hell I'd prefer to walk into a large group of people I wanted to kill with that 10-22 and four of these taped together reversed for two pairs, 100 rounds total in a super light, super accurate killing machine that is just not going to stop shooting via jam. Likely can get the exact setup from you local pawn shop for under 50 bucks!



But hell, its marginal if it would pierce that body armor, so I'd take that non-scary mini-14, same double reverse taped high capacity clips ... any day I'd take this over your scary "assault rifles".

So once again, ban those AP bullets (will not do diddly crap, as there is no advantage for the killer to use them anyway), and ban those scary looking war type rifles, even though you don't understand that will do diddly crap, because there are more deadly, and much cheaper alternatives (which I personally would choose in the first place)!

Actually, bell tower with 500 yard busy open areas, yea where's my Elk hunting Winchester model 70 300 win mag?

I know I've gone overboard here ... but people DO NOT give up freedoms for a FALSE sense of security.

It's not false. Numerous studies have shown that owning a gun is many times more dangerous than not owning a gun, even when people are assaulted. See here and here, for example. States with stronger gun control experience far fewer gun-related homicides and suicides than states with weaker gun control. See here:

[img=https://img.njdc.com/media/media/2015/09/01/wholechart.png][/img]

It will not, can not illuminate the threat and you will be no safer, only more restricted.

Nope. That's demonstrably false.

multi thread/multi post rant over ... hopefully it might have been educational to you. I'm not bullshitting here ... that ruger 10-22, one bad ass assault weapon - half of the kids in America own one, dual banana clips and all (loading no fun, shooting way fun).

You're contributing to the gun culture that conditions people to think guns are more important than lives, and that's just sick.

[_Jersey Girl]

Stop nit-picking Jersey Girl, you get the point.

Yeah, and the point is that you're not making sense.

You cherry picked rock's response to my own statement because now you have a case of the ass for rock like you do Ceeboo and are going after anything he posts. You're turning into the liberal equivalent of ldsfaqs.

This is what I said:

In closing, I think we need to place stricter controls on people not the guns that they use. By that I mean, stiff background checks, address mental illness, immigration issues, and that sort of thing.

How about deal with that?